Random Questions Thread

Ultimately speaking, who has the authority to reject or accept students into a university. By committee or a singular person?

Giving that responsibility to a single person is a bit careless, and unreasonable if the university is big enough to host thousands of students. Just sharing from my experience at enrolling, you go in when 1) You have very good grades from school (and some medals) that are recognized by the university, 2) You take a test, and if you score within the top (insert quota here) students you pass.

There is usually an admissions committee which makes that decision. The Movie "Admission" with Tina Fey in it is a good depiction of the process.

The most obvious 'rejectees' might be rejected with the least work possible. Like one person(or a few sharing the work) going through all applications, might even be done by computer. Like a F/incomplete on a required class/subject = auto rejected.

The committee might get a list of these that they just can rubber stamp to make it official?

That's not exactly how it works. Most admissions processes take place in stages. In the initial stage, the thousands of applications are examined by part time clerical staff, and the ones that obvious aren't qualified (failing to meet the min high school grade point average, etc.) are rejected out of hand. Those that make it are actually read and scored according to some easily quantifiable criteria (ACT scores, etc.)- the bottom "X" percentage are again discarded. The rest are read more intensively, by better trained full time staff, and more qualitative assessment is undertaken (who wrote the best essays, etc.). Again the top "X" percentage are retained, the rest are discarded. Those who are still in the pool at this point might be most intensively examined of all- things like their personal background, who their parents are, what subjects they express the most interest in, etc. Those who have not been rejected by this point will be accepted.

That's pretty much what I meant. The unqualified get removed first with the simplest/quickest process. The next stage they get rejected by clerical staff following some guidelines, or X% goal or X students goals, or whatever, and so on.

So every student getting admitted have gone trough the committee stage, while a x load of people have been rejected by some random clerical staff.

edited 20th Sep '14 10:35:46 AM by m8e

Is that how it works for the Ivy League, as well?

Man, that process HAS to be a clusterfuck, considering how many people want to go there...

I think they also require 2-3 letters of recommendations so a lot of people can be rejected by failing that.

That's how it works for almost any college, and it's not nearly the clusterfuck it sounds like. The first couple of stages weed out probably 75% (maybe more) of the applicants — High school GPA and ACT/SAT scores can be checked by computer, and it's easy enough to set a threshold number that the applicant has to be above to get to the next stage. (Conversely, an extraordinarily high GPA or test scores can bump that applicant up past the next couple of stages, right to final consideration. That's what happened to me; I hadn't even applied to the college I wound up attending yet, but I had my SAT scores sent to them. The first official communication I got from them was "We really want you to attend our school. If you apply, you'll be accepted. And given a four-year scholarship that will cover half your tuition, room and board, and your books. Please apply.")

edited 20th Sep '14 11:01:45 AM by Madrugada

Anyone here know where in Osaka are the rich residential areas located?

One of my minor characters is a trans woman in a pre-modern medicine era, so she isn't able to fully transition. I've been trying to find trustworthy resources on transgender people in previous eras, but I've come up short. Does anyone know some good sites that could help me with this?

In a knife fight, what's more important, slashing or stabbing?

@Hallow: According to this site, it's the Shinpoincho area in Osaka’s Tennoji-ku.

@KSPAM: Well, that's a matter of opinion and style. Very generally, stabbing is how you kill someone- but you more or less have to get 'em in the heart, or another vital area. Slashing generally wont put someone down right away- but it's safer and easier than trying to stab someone, and eventually the blood loss with degrade their performance.

Really, any fighter worth their salt would know how to do either, and take their shots as a matter of opportunity.

I ask because I have a character who's supposed to be a pro knife-fighter who later picks up and begins using a hand-scythe like this◊ for its magical properties (and also as a sharpy thingy) and was wondering if he'd even bother stabbing with it or just use it as a slashing weapon.

@ demarquis

Nice read in all, but when I meant "rich residential," I was referring to where the rich and famous live in, like the Ayala Alabang barangay in Muntinlupa City, National Capital Region, Republic of the Philippines, which is where I'm from BTW.

edited 20th Sep '14 9:20:10 PM by HallowHawk

A hand scythe is generally sharpened on its inner edge, not its outer. It would be difficult to use a weapon of that shape in any motion but a stabbing one, and that quite awkwardly.

Yeah, unless he's specifically trained in scythe fighting, it's going to be clumsy no matter what he tries to do with it.

edited 21st Sep '14 7:29:45 AM by demarquis

How valuable would a degree in anthropology be to a forensics scientist?

It should be noted that Polish peasants used scythes quite effectively as weapons, but to do so they had to take the blades and mount them facing forward on a long pole. It's something of a national weapon in their tradition.

That type of sickle (not "scythe"; to be pedantic, a sickle is used with one hand; short handle and semi-circular curve to the blade; sharp on the inside curve of the blade. Used for cutting grains or hay. A scythe is a two-handled tool used standing up instead of stooped over; it has a longer, less curved blade, and the handle is much longer. Used for cutting same kinds of crops as sickle. Evolved after the sickle.) would really only be useful for slashing and hooking at your opponent, not stabbing. Yes, it has a point, but look at the awkward way you'd have to position your hand and arm to stick that point into an opponent.

edited 21st Sep '14 11:32:35 AM by Madrugada

So it would work for hacking and slashing? Or, to be specific, reenacting Typhon's beatdown of Zeus where he ripped out all of his tendons with Kronos' sickle?

@Tera Chimera- I don't know if it would be *the* most useful degree possible, but forensic anthropology is definitely a thing. They actually have a degree for it at my college. So I could definitely see a forensic scientist with an anthropology degree, particularly if they focus more on macro stuff and less on microscopic forensics.

You certainly could. The account as I read it isn't that he cut out Zeus' sinews during the battle, but rather that he used the sickle to cut them out afterwards. That would be easily enough done, if the victim were unable to defend themself.

edited 21st Sep '14 12:36:43 PM by Madrugada

If a sudden new social or political climate (like the sudden reveal of the existence of Godzilla, for a non-indicative example) caused the world economy to utterly tank, is it realistic that the effects wouldn't be truly felt for decades to come, or would the effects be immediate? If the effects would be immediate, then is it possible that such a world-changing event or paradigm shift wouldn't make the economy crash immediately, but rather when tensions amongst the civilian population peaked in a time of duress?

edited 21st Sep '14 1:21:21 PM by KSPAM

The effect would be both immediate and long-lasting. Additional effects would become noticeable for years as well, as things that were done (or not done) to try to moderate the immediate effects had effects of their own.